[Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change

[Narelle Clark]

Wolf-Ulrich said: "I concur with Patrick saying: "If we are to continue coordination, interest for that should come from the OCs"

But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG."

This works for me - if the OCs are happy for this to continue along with no further effort from us, then fine. I am, however, hearing otherwise.

As we all know there is a long history of effective co-ordination between the groups. There is, however, new territory being traversed where a clearing house could be effective.

The word oversight could be removed from the text I have drafted.

[The issue could actually be that what is not be being more broadly  is 'oversight of the oversight' while new processes are being bedded down. Is that what my sources are really asking for? Were that to be the case, how would people ask for that? How would they resolve that?]


Narelle

From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015 1:00 AM

I concur with Patrick saying: "If we are to continue coordination, interest for that should come from the OCs"

But we should be triggering the OCs to point out their own interest and that of a potentially continuing relationship to the ICG.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Russ Housley<mailto:housley at vigilsec.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:10 PM
To: Narelle Clark<mailto:narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Text for proposed charter change

The middle name of the ICG is coordination, not oversight.  I have a serious concern with any attempt to change the charter to oversight.  Each of the operational communities already has mechanisms for oversight of the IANA functions, and we should not make any attempt to trump or interfere with them.

Russ


On Oct 17, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Narelle Clark wrote:


All
This is the text I propose we consider. I hope to still be awake by the time we get to this topic, given it is scheduled for around 2am my time. I would be happy to hold off on this discussion if necessary for a day or few. Please note, my thinking is that this is quite lightweight 'oversight' for want of a better word Co-ordination isn't quite sufficient.

----Text follows---------

The ICG might at some point have to offer its advice during the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition proposal. Principally, responsibility for implementation of the new components for IANA will rest with the relevant OC.  The ICG - as a multistakeholder body, representative of the wider Internet community - can provide a lightweight oversight and co-ordination function and intervene if and when it feels that the implementation details fail to meet the standards of performance expected for IANA.

Dissolution

The ICG should dissolve as soon as the implementation phase is complete.

------------------------------------

[Checks on the completion should be made at 3mo intervals for a period of no greater than 12mo.]


Thoughts?


--


Narelle Clark
Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
Australian Communications
Consumer Action Network

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151018/b5256649/attachment.html>